MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310266395 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.1014375

Barriers and facilitators for the sustainability of digital health interventions in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4310266395 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSustainabilityDigital healthBusinessHealth carePublic relationsNursingMedicineEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) have increased exponentially all over the world. Furthermore, the interest in the sustainability of digital health interventions is growing significantly. However, a systematic synthesis of digital health intervention sustainability challenges is lacking. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators for the sustainability of digital health intervention in low and middle-income countries. Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) were searched. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and quality assessed by four team members. Qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and published from January 2000 to May 2022 were included. Results: The sustainability of digital health interventions is very complex and multidimensional. Successful sustainability of digital health interventions depends on interdependent complex factors that influence the implementation and scale-up level in the short, middle and long term. Barriers identified among others are associated with infrastructure, equipment, internet, electricity and the DHIs. As for the facilitators, they are more focused on the strong commitment and involvement of relevant stakeholders: Government, institutional, sectoral, stakeholders' support, collaborative networks with implementing partners, improved satisfaction, convenience, privacy, confidentiality and trust in clients, experience and confidence in using the system, motivation and competence of staff. All stakeholders play an essential role in the process of sustainability. Digital technology can have long term impacts on health workers, patients, and the health system, by improving data management for decision-making, the standard of healthcare service delivery and boosting attendance at health facilities and using services. Therefore, management changes with effective monitoring and evaluation before, during, and after DHIs are essential. Conclusion: The sustainability of digital health interventions is crucial to maintain good quality healthcare, especially in low and middle-income countries. Considering potential barriers and facilitators for the sustainability of digital health interventions should inform all stakeholders, from their planning until their scaling up. Besides, it would be appropriate at the health facilities level to consolidate facilitators and efficiently manage barriers with the participation of all stakeholders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it